Interference No. 101,981
concrete admission which a party may not later disavow. We agree
with Qadri (Opposition, paper no. 202, p. 15) that, since 37
C.F.R. § 1.629(e) states that a “preliminary statement shall not
be used as evidence on behalf of the party filing the statement,”
it would be contradictory to use it here to determine inequitable
conduct.
Regarding the 131 affidavit, the dispute is whether it was
proper for Qadri to make statements therein identifying “before
March 5, 1987” as the date they produced a composition later
confirmed to be a single phase, orthorhombic 1-2-3
superconducting material. Qadri (opposition, paper no. 202, pp.
8-14) acknowledges and explains inconsistencies with respect to
what occurred on that date but maintains the importance of that
date in leading to the subject matter of the count. Batlogg
disagrees (reply, paper no. 212, p. 3) that any such material was
formed on the date. The dispute is a matter of how the parties
view the information Qadri had in their possession on March 5.
We agree that Qadri has taken a very liberal view of that
knowledge and in fact we determined that Qadri was actually
entitled to a much later date of conception. However, given
Qadri’s rationale for selecting those activities occurring prior
to March 5, 1987, and that a principal argument Qadri is making
80
Page: Previous 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007